Catholic Apologetics Guidebook

Dialogue on the Reliability, Inspiration, and Inerrancy of Scripture – Page 3

However, I do not believe Christ is necessary for salvation and I will not believe in ideas that I can not make rational sense of, merely because they are found within the pages of the Bible.

I don't believe things that go against reason either, but I do believe that there are some things that may make rational sense, yet which may be beyond my limited understanding. Also, I've struggled with some of those same issues about having difficulty accepting some things that are stated in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament. But whenever I have found something in the Bible that doesn't ring true, I have found that further study, and especially further research into what the Biblical author was likely to have meant (given translation issues, cultural factors, contemporary writing styles, etc.), has usually helped me to understand how what the Bible says actually is reasonable. In fact, I've found this to be true with enough issues that I now automatically give the Bible the benefit of the doubt on questionable issues, though I still seek to better understand such issues. I state this only to share my own experience, for whatever value it might have to you.

[The following two quotes were directed at another board member rather than at me, but I responded, as shown below.]

This is exactly what I have been laboring so hard and long to tell you...that we all come to God in our own unique ways and therefore....there is more than one path that leads toward Him. :-)

Well, to that I would just say that it depends on who is making the paths. Can we make a path to God on our own, without God's help? If so, then certainly there might be different paths for different people. Or do we need God to make a path to us, because we can't reach him on our own? If so, then considering that there is one God, I don't see why it's hard to believe that he might have created only one path (i.e., Christ). I acknowledge that it's theoretically possible for God to make multiple paths for us to reach him, but I don't see why it's strictly necessary for him to make any at all -- I'm thrilled that he made even one! :-)

What I am suggesting about the Bible is not that is wasn't possibly "divinely" inspired...but rather that it has been deliberately altered to ease the way for particular sects, be it for political or purely ideological reasons.

This is an area where I have done a bit of research as well. And all of the scholarship I have read points in a very different direction than what you have found. Certainly it is a fact that there are differences in different ancient manuscripts. But in my experience, the differences tend to be very minor, and they rarely (if ever) would cause a particular book or chapter of the Bible to take on a significantly different meaning. And according to the sources that I have read, the New Testament manuscripts are more textually reliable (e.g., we have more manuscripts from further back in time) than any other text from that era. Furthermore, very ancient copies have been found of some Biblical texts (e.g., a partial copy of John's Gospel from around 125 A.D.), so while we don't have the originals, in at least a few cases we have copies that are not far removed from the originals.

But perhaps you would contend that even if the changes from the originals are very minor, doesn't that still negate the possibility of divine inspiration? I would say no. The way I see it, the original authors wrote the original manuscripts under divine inspiration. However, I don't believe that later copyists or translators were divinely inspired. What we have today, in the form of slightly less-than-perfect copies of those manuscripts, and in the form of necessarily imperfect translations of those copies, can perhaps be said to be divinely inspired to the extent that they express the meaning contained in the original manuscripts. Fortunately, from everything I have been able to learn, our modern copies and translations in fact do express the meaning of the originals to a very large extent.

Consider that even if we had the original manuscripts, most people still wouldn't be able to read them, because they wouldn't be able to read ancient Greek or Hebrew. So most non-scholars (and even some scholars) would still rely on translations, which by their very nature are imperfect and carry some level of translator bias. And very few Christians today make the claim that any particular translator was divinely inspired in making a particular translation of the Bible. So I doubt that many Christians would claim that a particular translator (or team of translators) was divinely inspired even if he was translating from the original manuscripts.

So if I (as a Christian) can believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible without believing that any particular translator was divinely inspired when making a particular translation of the Bible, then why can't I also believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible without believing that any particular ancient copyist was divinely inspired when he made a particular copy of the Bible? In other words, I'm not sure that your assertions are as problematic for a belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture as you might think they are.

Just some food for thought.

Paul, "our modern copies and translations in fact do express the meaning of the originals to a very large extent."

Perhaps, but to a "very large extent" is not necessarily completely devoid of potential error either or a perfect endorsement for total inerrancy.

So...even one minor inconsistency or alteration negates the idea of inerrancy, because inerrancy implies perfection.

Essentially...even 99% is not 100%.

Again...I never spoke to the degree to which the Bible might be accurate, I merely speak against the idea of inerrancy.

And...even if I were to grant you Biblical inerrancy, I certainly wouldn't be able to grant you the same in regards to the human ability to actually read and intepret the Bible inerrantly.

So...whether the text is without flaw is almost immaterial, if we lack the ability to completely understand it anyway.

One mistaken interpretation, absorded fully into the culture, has the potential to be incredibly dangerous.

Wars have started over less. ;-)

Also Paul, if we are discussing paths to God, what if we were to imagine someone, at whatever A.D. period of time, who grew up having never heard of Jesus Christ. Could that person not have had divine experiences that allowed them to feel the presence of the Lord?

So...what I meant by different paths is precisely that, that we may each commune with the Lord in the manner in which we are best equipped to do so.

That is why I say the Bible is but a piece of the larger puzzle and not the puzzle in totality itself.

Granted, the more resources we have and the more exposure to God's handiwork we are privy to, the more complete picture we might be able to possibly draw.

I think we have to remember that throughout history there have been numerous peoples who did not have much of a choice in what they were indoctrinated with or the access to the resources that would allow them a different choice.

Does it make sense that a God of infinite wisdom, love and forgiveness would punish a good-hearted person simply because they didn't believe in Jesus Christ...especially if they knew virtually or literally nothing about him?

In the same way we may call a prostitute a sinner, many prostitutes in impoverished countries are forced against their will into being prostitutes. They had no choice or say in the matter, except maybe the choice of being murdered for not complying and they probably know nothing at all about the salvation of Jesus Christ.

So...is that person a true sinner?

Would the kingdom of Heaven be closed to such a person?

So again, even if the Bible is inerrant, I don't trust any of you people to read it inerrantly, regardless of how well-intentioned you may be.

You are humans and you have flaws, biases and agendas.

Language and human understanding contain limits, thus making the prospect of inerrant interpretation impossible.